Winston Churchill once famously quoted that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."

Although democracy is not itself a specific type of government, many governments credit themselves as having "democratic character". Rhetorically, this is meant to imply that, through majoritarian decision-making, popular consensus can be achieved with coercion, exploitation, and violations of individual rights being kept to a minimum. However, as is immediately apparent upon serious examination and reflection, most if not all governments (whether "democratic" in character or not) are, as a requisite feature of their nature, structurally dependant upon precisely the types of coercion, domination, and exploitation which they claim to remedy. The word "Democracy" is Greek in origin. "Demo" meaning "people", and "Kratos" meaning "to rule"; democracy is a term which means that the people rule themselves. Not one person set above all (monarchy), not one group or party for themselves over others (oligarchy), but literally the people ruling themselves, not set above or below one another--- all for one and one for all, so to speak. Governments said to have "democratic character" claim to aspire to this state of affairs and seek to achieve it by employing means which are, both in theory and practice, antithetical to and destructive of this goal.

Modern democratic thought is highly influenced by a philosopher named John Stuart Mill, particularly so by what he called "Utilitarianism". J.S. Mill's principle of Utilitarianism is stated, very briefly, that the goal of society is to achieve the highest amount of good possible for the largest amount of people possible, while minimizing detriment to the maximal degree possible. This carries with it the implication that there will always and necessarily be a degree of exploitation and disservice, and that such are inexorably linked to any degree of happiness and prosperity to be achieved by anyone. Which fits perfectly well with a majoritarian approach to democracy, wherein the majority opinion is enforced against dissent through arms, guile, or economics to the exclusion and detriment of minority opinion, no matter how large or slim the majority dividing the two may be. Therefore a society fashioned around such principles, presuming that the "good" for one group is predicated upon the "not-good" of others (no matter how large or small in number), as a necessary structural component of its existence, will always divide its population into groups (along whatever culturally specific criterion established by that society) which experience varying and unequal degrees of service, status, and acceptance. Thus, society is segregated into various classes.
Indeed, J.S. Mill was very influential in enlightenment-era philosophical discourse. His work was, and is, integral to the development of the idea of the so-called "social contract", which is instrumental to the structures of Constitutionally-Democratic governments. J.S. Mill's work on the subject was oriented around a hypothetical condition which he termed "the original position", which very simply stated is this: that human beings as a fact of their existence, being weaker than other animals, needed to assemble in groups by which to conduct collective activity for their very survival, and that at such time as these individuals coalesced into their groups, they entered into an arrangement whereby, for the functioning of the group along the Utilitarian precepts mentioned above, certain individual rights are surrendered in exchange for the services and benefits, to be agreed upon at the time of this formation, rendered by collective activity in the context of this new society. J.S. Mill postulated that individuals entered into this arrangement under another hypothetical condition which he artistically termed a "veil of ignorance", in which the individuals were unaware of their social class relative to each other, either because social class was to be invented in the terms of the social contract or because the social contract pre-dated the advent of social class, in which case dichotomous social standing was the supposedly natural result of the interplay between individuals of differing backgrounds and talents. Most Constitutional governments that formed contemporaneously with Mill, and for long after as well, were highly influenced by these premises, and almost totally dependant upon them in many cases. Their influence persists to this very day.

The obvious flaw in Mill's "Original Position" is that this never happened. Human beings and their societies didn't just appear one day, fully formed yet unaware of themselves. Society (Here defined: a group of individuals interacting in a social context for mutual benefit) in fact pre-dates human existence. Our closest kin in the animal world, apes, all exhibit their own types of societies, which function often times very similarly to our own. Our ancestors, Hominids, themselves descendants of apes, also had their own societies. In fact, society is a survival adaptation of our kind, and is that which has made possible the development of our species. For literally millions of years, existing in society has influenced individuals; indeed, humans cannot live (well) outside the context of society, for our development as a species has been within the context of society since long before we were recognizably human! This precludes J.S. Mill's notion that humans existed at one time outside of society and coalesced into societies as a necessary factor for the survival of the individual. To sum, rather than society being the spontaneous result of the interaction between diverse individuals, the very opposite is true; individuals exist because of their development within and interactions with society, and cultural diversity as well is the result of the cumulative interactions between individuals, society, and the ongoing development of both--- a result of evolution.

If segregation of human society into classes were a natural fact of our human development, it would be ubiquitous throughout all human societies the world over, and at all times. If class division were a natural part of human society, as is the case with creatures like ants, there would be no society anywhere without it, and that is clearly not the case. Numerous societies throughout time, many even still in the present, did not exhibit this culturally specific trait. It is not necessary for there to be one group to rule and another to serve, nor indeed is such a dichotomy appropriate or ethical. The presence of this and other inequities are the result of a society built largely on deception and false premises which enable those in power to justify to themselves the abuses they utilize to maintain their power, as well as to convince those who are abused that nothing can be done to improve their situation. To reference the opening quote from Churchill, democracy is not a government, nor has it ever been tried. Democracy and government cannot exist in the same place at the same time. Government itself, whether authoritarian or majoritarian, is totally destructive of democracy. Government forces individuals and groups to submit to authority in order to serve the authority's goals, whether that authority is violent, religious, or "democratic in character"; without exception the goals of the ruling class are self-servicing are always achieved at the expense of whatever group or groups do not possess comparable power or influence. Real democracy is only possible when there is no government and no class division. Make no mistake and do not be fooled--- anything less than real democracy is nothing less than another mutation of tyranny.

Real democracy is not hierarchical--- it does not require some to submit to others, or proclaim some individuals as superior and others as inferior. Real democracy is a society for all people everywhere, without preconditions of servitude, or of debt, or of sacrifice as pre-requisites for participation or receipt of benefit. It is not faith, it is not slavery; it is neither poverty nor wealth, neither scarcity nor excess; it is not the dominance of one race or of one religion or of one class over any other. It is reason, and science, and understanding, and empathy. Real democracy is sustainable and equal, each producing according to ability and each receiving according to need. It is liberty, equality, and fraternity, without amendment or abrogation. Real democracy grows without end, ever changing to respond and adapt to ever changing circumstances, and holds nothing sacrosanct or static. Real democracy is free and equal individuals working with their free and equal peers, not serving institutions under pain of death or threat of suffering.
To say that it has not been tried is not entirely accurate--- democracy has been tried every time that a people have risen up in revolution to cast off the chains of domination and oppression- it has been tried the world over and throughout history, in movements great and small. Often the greater immediate achievements are brutally repressed by the reactionary hubris of the ruling class, in a vain effort to turn back the ever-rising tide of human advancement and to preserve their own status as slave masters and overseers. Though the immediate achievements of revolutions might be turned back temporarily, the effect of their example is cumulative. All the greatest achievements of free people--- minority rights, women's rights, labor rights, free speech, all had to be hard won through difficult struggle and revolutionary action, and a still better world is yet to won! Democracy grows upon those revolutions which have come before, and contributes to those yet to come, building towards an ever freer world; a better world without slaves or masters, without exploitation or domination; without governments, or corporate kleptocracies. Real freedom, real equality, real democracy--- Anarchy is the practice and implementation of these things. Through Anarchy, they are not just ideals--- they are realities, and they are worth struggling for.

The governments of today, servants of the ruling class and veiled by the insulting farce of democracy which scarcely hides their naked greed and aggression, are quite literally a dead-end for humanity. They are unsustainable, and if allowed to continue as they have done and as they do now, the survival of the entire human race is in very serious peril. Anarchism is the way to a sustainable society, one with which the human species can continue ever onward into a future of limitless development. Don't believe what you've been told by your state, and never accept things as just being said and done--- another world is possible, and the future is ours.

is this your write up?